Evan Ebel’s time in solitary confinement

According to a New York Times article in The Denver Post (“Solitary con?nement given to some illegal immigrants,” March 24), after people have spent 15 days in solitary confinement, “psychiatric experts say they are at risk for severe mental harm.” Since most of those in solitary are eventually coming out into society, corrections officials are doing a disservice by using “administrative segregation” for more than 15 days.

Evan Ebel was in solitary confinement for five years. It didn’t help him. It didn’t convince him to follow the law. It drove him deeper into the abyss he was already in. When he was released, there was no transition for him. How many others are in this same situation? It is frightening to think about.

Monica O’Brien Wolfe, Lakewood

This letter was published in the March 28 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

From the news story in the Denver Post……Ebel’s problems and troubles began LONG BEFORE he ever ended up in “solitary confinement”,,,,,,and were HIS CHOICE to commit.

He pulled a gun on friends while watching a game on TV and robbed them?

Ebel was sentenced to prison simply because he could not function in general society and needed to be separated from our general society for the SOCIETY’S well-being.

While in PRISON…..Ebel apparently continued his CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR……and could not function in general population in prison and needed to be separated from the general prison population for the PRISON’S well-being.

That is all “solitary confinement” is: It is a “prison within a prison” to separate CRIMINALS WHO ARE STILL COMMITTING CRIMES from the prison “society.”

Ebel became the person he became long before he ever set foot in a prison……long before he ever was sentenced to prison………long before he was ever convicted of the charge that sent hin to prison……and long before he was even arrested for the crime he committed that lead to the court case that lead to the sentence that lead to him being in prison.

“Solitary confinement” was nothing more than the “icing” the the “cake” of his entire Criminal Lifestyle before and after he went to prison.

primafacie

Of course, Ms. Wolfe, you and anyone else have no idea if solitary confinement “drove him deeper into the abyss.” Evan Ebel just as easily could have plotted this killing for myriad reasons, including issues related to the prison gang with which he was affiliated.

thor

To quote Gregory “Spot on.”

ThePyro

Agreed! From what statistics I’ve seen, the instances of post-release violence are just as high for the general population as those in solitary confinement. While there may be a link between solitary and mental harm, there doesn’t seem to be the kind of link that Ms. Wolfe is proposing.

toohip

show us the statistics? I realize only the “usual suspects” jumped on this band wagon of hate, but the statistics (not your facts) say otherwise. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement “Issues of mental health and insanity due to solitary confinement and other extreme forms of isolation date back to the 19th century and have been broadly researched by a variety of academics and scholars.

Erm…you missed my point. Ms. Wolfe, in her closing sentences, suggested that those stuck in solitary – and hence being subject to mental harm – are “more scary” than those who aren’t. I’m not arguing that solitary confinement doesn’t cause mental anguish, but pointing out that upon release, that mental harm doesn’t necessarily translate to sociopathic behavior.

One of the newest studies to support this is from the University of Washington, titled “Felony and Violent Recidivism Among Supermax Prison Inmates in Washington State: A Pilot Study” (you’ll have to search it since I can’t post links without the reply going in the bin). The report indicates a higher rate of recidivism and a potential for more violent crimes. But it also states that there’s no clear way to determine that the kinds of criminal that would do such things naturally end up in solitary, or if the solitary confinement causes them to act in such a manner. That inconclusiveness comes from studies like one done in Colorado (search on an article titled “Study Raises Questions About Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement” at the National Institute of Justice website) that suggests inmates in solitary for certain periods don’t necessarily adopt new psychological problems, but only emphasize ones they already have. Some of the referenced documents in the bibliographic section of the UW report come to similar conclusions as these.

Taking all that together indicates that there isn’t a provable link between solitary confinement and inmates becoming the next sociopath du jour, which was my point.

And Bandwagon Of Hate is definitely going in my list of band names. Usual Suspects is already taken.

primafacie

Felony and Violent Recidivism would work as a band name too. Or a fantasy baseball team name.

toohip

My apologies if I misinterpreted your intent, but your reply suggests – to me – I interpreted it correctly. You seem to be grasping a facts that support the idea that solitary confinement experience – in this case 5 years! – did not “necessarily” contribute to Ebel’s violent nature that followed.

May I point out that from what I believe I read, the Ebel had a long history of crimes, but none that were of violence. It wasn’t until after he experience the 5 years of SC that he became violent, both while being imprisoned. . threatening guards, etc. and post-release with his crime spree. This suggests your theory is wrong.

Also I completely disagree with your suggestion that the studies on SC do not support a consequences of violent nature or increase sociopathy. They do and if you objectively do a Google search this is what you will find. I will agree with you to any human condition study there is the exception. We can always find people who have suffered from solitary confinement for long periods that are released and become pillars of the community. But again, I’m willing to bet objective studies will find this more the exception then the rule. Nelson Mandela was no criminal, but he was in solitary confinement for what, 27 years and look at the pillar of the community he is. But without being a professional, I’m guessing that someone who has some already psychopathic tendencies not to respect the law or the innocence of people as Ebel did, are more susceptible to suffer from SC, and actually become MORE violent, as is suggested by Ebel’s history.

So I hope you’re not arguing “for” the use of solitary confinement as a punishment, because while I would agree there are reasonable applications – including as a “punishment” for mass murders when the death penalty can’t satiate our vengeance, and we want true “punishment” for this excessive mass killer.

ThePyro

I’m not arguing for or again solitary confinement…nor am I trying to assert that there isn’t an increase in recidivism or violent crime of solitary felons over general population felons. All of that is widely available in the public realm.

What I’m saying is that, as more studies are done and the data is examined more closely, there is no conclusive evidence that solitary CAUSED the psychological problems versus EXACERBATED them (caps are for emphasis…not yelling).

The studies that are now looking at that issue are examining more narrowed data sets that look not just at broad topics of recidivism and repetition of crime, but get into more specific evaluations of what kinds of released felons performed what kinds of crimes and whether or not the more violent ones ended back in prison. Those more narrowed studies seem to demonstrate that general population felons aren’t that far off from solitary felons – which lends credence to the Exacerbated camp as opposed to the Caused camp.

So, while I agree with you that solitary confinement might be causing more problems than its solving, tossing it in favor of just having general population inmates doesn’t seem to be as viable a solution as once thought. I’m not sure what an intermediate solution would be, but it seems to me one is needed.

toohip

I think you’re looking for excuses to not to do away with solitary confinement. The studies are pretty conclusive that there IS a direct correlation of solitary confinement and psychological problems that lead to violence AND recidivism. Denying this or trying desperately to “read-in” to the studies that they “exacerbate” vs “cause” is just playing with word. I don’t think anyone is suggesting totally tossing it out. There are extremely violent convicts who HAVE to be in solitary for the protection of the general population and the guards. In fact, I’m in favor of meeting that “vengeance” factor we have when violent mass killers of innocents get life without parole, to be put in solitary. Obviously we don’t have to worry about recidivism or if they become more violent.

ThePyro

I don’t need any excuses…because I don’t particularly care one way or the other. The only real way any of this effects me…and this is going to sound incredibly callous and morbid…is when I happen to be on duty as a volunteer firefighter/medic and we get a 911 medical call or the coroner calls us to help haul off a body.

And I’m not trying to “read in” anything – the studies based on the perspective, not me fiddling with the results to suit my outlook. The scientists are making the hypothesis, not me.

The question they’re asking, and I think it’s a good one, is whether or not reducing the incidences of solitary confinement or adopting some alternate will actually solve the problem. If the inmates are already predisposed to violent behavior even if they’re in general population (i.e., solitary exacerbates), that’s needed information to better evaluate the alternatives. Assuming that solitary is the cause might lead to a bad decision on an alternate solution, and we’ll be back having this discussion a decade from now.

toohip

“You lie!” Come on Pyro don’t try to convince us you “don’t particularly care one way or the other.” That’s not only contrary to what you’re arguing here, but it’s totally unnatural. . especially someone like us who come on these forums to argue our opinions.

And I still feel you have a strong opinion on this, because if you re-read your point about “fiddling with the results” or “scientists making “hypothesis,” not me”. . any one can see you simply disagree with this scientific study. I don’t have a problem with that, I have those contrary moments when something I strongly believe in is countered by scientific study or some poll. I just heard on This Week, that people supporting gun control “fell” from 57% to 47% in from Dec to today. I find that hard to believe, and as others pointed out, specific gun control issues like background checks are supported by 90% of the people. So I understand it’s hard to always accept a factual statement, and we can agree no all factual statements are universally true or realistically true.

And you mention a phenomena that I’ve spoke to many times regarding the reactions of police when they abuse innocent people. And that is the contrast of the social life of their job, and it seems reflected on firefighter/medics. You encounter primarily two types of people. . .innocent victims of violence or especially for police. . guilty purpetrators of violence. This is transcribe to the real world of not being able to see the grays of society, and to react to only black and white. You see the results of violence and your response is conditional. I’m sure I might be more hardened if I was in that profession, but as an intelligent person I realize you know we have to rise above our experiences in our real world and react with intelligence and compassion to a class of individuals we see as black and white, and offer little if any support.

ThePyro

Still not lying – my experiences as a medic push me to be callous to what put people in the condition and focus on their immediate plight. And the fact is, I’ll be scraping body parts off of asphalt regardless of the outcome of this issue. So, I continue to state truthfully that it matters not to me.

My money-making job is as an engineer that focuses on risk analysis, which tells me that data and research are important to good outcomes – and THAT is where my opinion and perspective on this lies. In this case, the immediate data makes it easy to argue against solitary confinement, and I make no qualms about that. But the more detailed evaluations now being done are mostly coming to similar conclusions – the previous studies focused on too broad of statistics to point toward an alternate that will actually fix the problem. The newer studies are trying to do that, and they’re finding that there is less difference in the statistics when specific inmates and psychological profiles are included. Once again, I’ll state that this perspective is the basis of the analysis, not my interpretation of the results. If you don’t believe me – read the report from the University of Washington that I mentioned above.

On a broad social perspective, I’m all for outcomes that produce less violent citizens when they get released. I agree that solitary confinement can mentally harm inmates…it’d be stupid not to given the evidence. My point is, and has been, that the newer data is suggesting that it’s inconclusive whether the incidence of sociopathic behavior – when focused on those already predisposed to that kind of behavior – is really that different between general population and solitary inmates…and getting back to Ms. Wolfe, it’s unclear whether solitary would produce a more scary sociopath than if that same person had spent their time in general population. It’s a refinement of the previous information that muddies the conclusions of those earlier studies, and we need to understand the details they’re presenting to get to a better solution. It helps answer the question, “If we’re going to move away from solitary confinement, as has been advocated, what should we use instead and not end up in the same place?” I don’t know what that answer is, and I agree that an answer is needed, but the data seems to indicate that it won’t be as easy to find as we’d like it to be.

toohip

I still believe you’re on that river in Egypt regarding this issue, pyro. To cling to some hope or “inconclusive” evidence that possibly, just “maybe,” a person with a predisposition to be violent might NOT become more violent after FIVE years in solitary confinement. . is something more than just wishful thinking. I see it more a denial. “Inconclusive denial?” Maybe not. but with all the references, and intellectual-speak, even with the deflection of you agree that solitary can mentally harm inmates, you still want to believe, maybe just in Ebel’s case that the five years of solitary didn’t play any negative into his sociopathic nature. OK, let’s say it didn’t – in this case. “Going back” to “what ifs” is not the game here. It’s a great issue for those that have the potential to be negatively affected by solitary and THAT is the real issue here. You seem to agree with that? Can we agree that solitary should not be used unless absolutely necessary?

And you have to consider with your experience in being a medic and dealing with victims of violence it not only makes you more aware of the consequences of violent people but that it also hardens your bias towards those of violent nature, While you “enjoy” a greater experience in the reality world of violence, more so than me or others, could it also steel your resolve to rise above the gut reaction towards those that are violent to seek to find a more amenable solution to violence, then simply lock them away. . in solitary? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but have you considered this?

ThePyro

Ah – NOW I see where we’re tied up. You seem to think I’m fighting the data on the base fact – so let me state it outright: Solitary messes people up and only in rare exceptional cases does it not make them worse off. We agree there.

I’m not clinging to any kinds of hopes about that fact not being correct. I’m looking at the new reports and the data they contain and asking “Well, will anything change for us on the outside?” As I read them, they indicate that the incidence of violence from post-release inmates with sociopathic tendencies may not change considerably – based on the premise that the kinds of people who end up in solitary are also the kinds of people who would perpetuate such violence even if they were kept in general population. In effect “sociopaths are sociopaths” – and that’s just theory at this point and more work needs to be done.

My perspective on this is outcome based: If we fix the problem with harming inmates, what is the effect on the public? Are we better off for it? Maybe, maybe not…that’s what the research is looking into. Plus, it gets to my issue with Ms. Wolfe’s question: “How many others are in the same situation?” If you believe the new data (and I do) many, many, many more than are currently in solitary, because the problem is bigger than that – and we should be worrying about that bigger problem, not just the solitary confinement piece.

In your last paragraph, you misunderstand the mentality that develops in emergency responders, medical personnel and others. We can, and do in my case because I’ve been doing it for about a quarter-century now, become hardened and numb to it ALL. Patients are nameless and faceless, and the cause of the violence is immaterial because it…just…keeps…coming. I restate that it matters not to me (and honestly so) because you could do away with every bit of the sociopathic behavior that comes with solitary confinement, and guys and gals like me still have to go to multicar pileups, train crashes, large-scale robberies and other such things – all of them with way higher probabilities than a mass shooter. I’m much the same way with traffic safety efforts, rail crossing safety, fire safety and a bunch of other stuff. It’s not just this topic.

Those who begin caring the way you suggest – regardless of which direction the care takes them (e.g., toward the victims, against the perpetrators, for or against the larger issue, etc.) – tend to get out of the business pretty quickly, for their own mental health.

toohip

on that rive in Egypt again, prima? No, Ebel isn’t talking but many, many more like him have “talked” and from these open-mind evaluations of these people, we’ve learned that solitary confinement is a detriment, not a deterrent to recidivism. Would Evan Ebel have fallen into the 211 gang and committed these heinous acts had he not had this five year experience with solitary confinement? Want to volunteer to test the theory?

primafacie

We’ll never know.

toohip

again, you miss the point. Ebel’s mind can’t be studied, but others that aren’t dead and have served solitary confinement, HAVE been studied and the studies show solitary confinement does cause psychosis and violent tendencies (don’t make me quote the sources, I just did prior to making this statement – which I usually do before making a statement I’m not positive of). I realize you wish your belief were factual. that solitary confinement has nothing to do with Ebel’s violent nature. . but it’s true. Why the Post came out with a store inciting the likes of your ilk that Ebel was let loose early from his sentence BECAUSE of the fact solitary confiment is cruel and humane, and there’s a Colorado policy that says people who have (erroneously) been put in solitary confinement for a long time – 5 years for Ebel – they get time off as kind of “oops! we screwed up.” More proof that even the prison system recognizes this is cruel and unhumane punishment, AND, contributed to what a person with a non-violent criminal history into one of violence. This is the point many, including his mother, have made, and is viable.

primafacie

But time in solitary is clearly not an issue with Evan Ebel. He was a problem the day he arrived.

Granted, solitary didn’t fix him. But that doesn’t mean it drove him to these acts he presumably committed.

toohip

No, but you seem to agree it didn’t “help.” Ebel was no angel, we know that. But the point here is solitary didn’t help him, and probably made him worse as studies have shown. What’s the alternative for someone like Ebel? I don’t know, but obviously solitary wasn’t the solution. If he was violating rules and making threats right up to when he was released, why did they release him. I read it was because of his undue time in solitary.

primafacie

As I said before, we’ll never know. What we do know is that Evan Ebel was trouble before and after his time in solitary, which may or may not be related to his prison gang affiliation and the murder of Tom Clements.

His early release is a separate can of worms.

toohip

I agree his early release is a can of. . not worms, but “what ifs.” This is the Post stirring the pot on this story and they ran it today too, yet few people are posting. Worn out story? We can play the “what if” game with anything. “What if” Ebel had gotten professional help paid for by tax payers (i.e,rehabilitation) when he first started offending? “What if” Ebel’s unsociable (violent?) behavior had been treated more professionally with counseling rather than solitary confinement? “What if” the prison had isolate the 211 gang leader away from the other population (as was recently done)? Maybe Ebel might have turned into a contribution to humanity rather a killer? His mother seemed to feel there was hope, and while we realize a mother’s unchallenged love, we also have to recognize know one knew Evan Ebel better than his parents. We can say the same of our mothers.
But we DO KNOW that solitary confinement has a negative reaction to people, especially those with vulnerable or already disturbed minds. Solitary is not as much punishment as it is a solution. Can we agree to find better ways to rehabilitating criminals . . to at least make an effort, and throw away the key on the rest?

toohip

while the “usual suspects” who enjoy “punishment” to satisfy their over-driving black and white human nature of vengeance will argue solitary confinement is justified. . per their “belief”, Christian or otherwise. . . science and studies will show it’s a detriment to the human condition. And if this person has an chance of being released, that consequences of solitary confinement on their human condition becomes a liability for public, if and when this person is released on parole.
This is the suggestion that is being made of Ebel. While we expect a mother to defend Ebel’s potential to be a decent human being “if” he had better opportunities or wasn’t treated so humanely, those with more open minds and less personal vengeance, seem to agree. The rest of the “lock’em up and throw away the key!” types, just get their personal satisfaction of punishment, without accepting the science that says solitary confinement is not a deterrent to recidivism.

Happy Jack

Not knowing the reason of why this man was in solitary for an extented period I want to point out that the people paid to watch the prisoners have a most difficult job. They not only have to protect themselves but protect the inmates from each other. If they have an inmate that is prone to violence they may put him in solitary to prevent attacks on other inmates. I do not know if that was the reason….just saying.
And to those of you that deal with the inmates everyday, thank you.

guest

Good point. What are they going to do if the inmates break the rules, attack other prisoners, etc.? Put them in jail?

primafacie

Shake a finger at them and say, “Don’t ever do that again.”

primafacie

So, now we’re learning that Evan Ebel was a discipline problem from the day he arrived in the joint, even threatening to kill a female guard.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...